Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS)

Abstract

The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), along with its widely utilized successor, the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2), represents the preeminent psychometric framework in behavioral science, family sociology, and clinical psychology for quantifying the strategies and behavioral tactics employed by partners to manage and resolve disagreements in intimate relationships. Conceived initially in the 1970s by Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles, and systematically revised by Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, and Sugarman in 1996, the CTS instruments shifted intimate partner violence (IPV) measurement from broad, qualitative legal-medical classifications to standardized, behaviorally specific operationalizations. The full CTS2 comprises 78 items structured into 39 parallel dyadic pairs, querying both the respondent’s own behavior (perpetration) and their partner’s corresponding acts (victimization) across five distinct operational domains: Negotiation (6 item pairs; 12 items), Psychological Aggression (8 item pairs; 16 items), Physical Assault (12 item pairs; 24 items), Sexual Coercion (7 item pairs; 14 items), and Physical Injury (6 item pairs; 12 items). Items are rated along an 8-point ordinal scale calibrated to quantify past-year annual incidence frequencies (ranging from 0 = “This has never happened” to 6 = “More than 20 times in the past year”, alongside a category for historical occurrence). Psychometric evaluations consistently confirm high internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically spanning from .79 to .95 across subscales, robust test-retest reliability, and well-substantiated construct, convergent, and discriminant validity across diverse demographic and clinical populations. While the CTS instruments have stimulated robust academic debate regarding gender symmetry and the omission of contextual motives (e.g., self-defense versus coercive control), the scale remains the international gold standard for behavioral research, forensic evaluation, epidemiologic monitoring, and intervention efficacy trials in intimate relationship aggression.

Keywords

Conflict Tactics Scale, CTS2, intimate partner violence, domestic violence measurement, physical assault, psychological aggression, sexual coercion, injury scale, family conflict theory, relationship violence assessment, dyadic measurement, psychometrics.

Authors

The Conflict Tactics Scales were developed, revised, and expanded by a prominent collective of family violence researchers affiliated with the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire:

• Murray A. Straus, Ph.D. (1926–2016): Founder and Co-Director of the Family Research Laboratory and Professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire (Durham, NH, USA). Straus was widely regarded as a founding pioneer in family violence sociology, initiating the first nationally representative family violence surveys in the United States and spearheading the conceptual and psychometric formulation of the original CTS (1979) and the CTS2 (1996).
• Richard J. Gelles, Ph.D.: Professor of Social Policy and former Dean of the School of Social Policy & Practice at the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA, USA). Gelles co-directed seminal national family violence studies alongside Murray Straus and contributed fundamentally to the conceptualization of conflict resolution tactics and domestic abuse operationalizations.
• Sherry L. Hamby, Ph.D.: Research Professor of Psychology at the University of the South (Sewanee, TN, USA) and Director of the Life Paths Research Center. Dr. Hamby served as the primary co-developer of the CTS2, contributing expert clinical and measurement design to the expansion of psychological aggression, sexual coercion, and physical injury dimensions.
• Sue Boney-McCoy, Ph.D.: Psychometrician and researcher previously based at the Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire. Contributed extensively to the psychometric calibration, factor structure analysis, and item selection for the revised scale.
• David B. Sugarman, Ph.D.: Professor of Psychology at Rhode Island College (Providence, RI, USA) and long-standing research associate at the Family Research Laboratory, known for meta-analytic contributions to partner assault etiology and instrument validation.

Primary Institutional Origin & Historic Inquiries:
Family Research Laboratory
126 Horton Social Science Center, University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824, United States
Website: University of New Hampshire Family Research Laboratory

Purpose

The foundational objective of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) and its contemporary iteration, the CTS2, is to establish an objective, standardized, and behavior-anchored assessment of the strategies couples deploy to resolve conflicts within marital, cohabiting, or dating relationships. Prior to the formal introduction of the CTS by Murray Straus in 1979, the measurement of domestic violence relied almost exclusively on institutional records—specifically police arrest reports, hospital emergency room admissions, and shelter intake statistics. These archival sources captured only the most catastrophic manifestations of physical abuse, severely underestimating the prevalence of interpersonal conflict in the community and introducing severe selection biases. Clinical assessments suffered from ambiguous definitions and stigmatizing terminology, such as asking respondents if they had “abused,” “battered,” or “victimized” their partner—terms that virtually guarantee underreporting due to social desirability bias, denial, and varying subjective definitions of violence.

The CTS solved this methodological crisis by embedding behavioral questions within a universal normative framework: conflict is an inescapable, natural facet of all human relationships, but the specific tactics individuals utilize to navigate that conflict vary widely along a continuum from calm reasoning to lethal aggression. By presenting respondents with concrete, behavioral descriptions of actions (e.g., “I slammed my partner against a wall,” “I suggested a compromise to a disagreement”) rather than subjective or moral labels, the CTS markedly diminishes defensive reporting biases. Furthermore, the CTS2 is constructed as a dual-informant or bidirectional dyadic scale; every item assessing perpetration (“I did this”) is systematically matched with an equivalent item assessing partner victimization (“My partner did this to me”). This dyadic architecture permits researchers and clinicians to assess reciprocal versus nonreciprocal patterns of aggression, inter-partner reporting discrepancies, and systemic dynamics within the relationship.

In empirical research, the CTS serves as the core methodological apparatus for epidemiologic prevalence surveys, longitudinal investigations into the transmission of intergenerational violence, studies exploring the neurobiological and psychological consequences of intimate trauma, and cross-cultural analyses of gender and power. In clinical, forensic, and social service environments, the CTS2 functions as a critical screening instrument to detect hidden relationship dysfunction, determine client eligibility for specific modalities of couples therapy (where severe physical aggression represents a strict contraindication), formulate risk management protocols in family law and custody evaluations, and measure therapeutic change across court-mandated batterer intervention programs and domestic violence treatment protocols.

Psychological Construct

The CTS2 measures a multidimensional behavioral construct rooted in interpersonal conflict resolution and dyadic aggression. Rather than conceptualizing partner abuse as a unidimensional or monolithic phenomenon, the instrument delineates five distinct behavioral dimensions, each stratified into minor versus severe manifestations to capture varying levels of lethality and clinical urgency:

1. Negotiation Subscale

The Negotiation dimension assesses positive, adaptive, and nonviolent strategies utilized to settle disagreements. Unlike the negative behavioral scales, Negotiation reflects constructive dyadic problem-solving, cognitive empathy, and emotional validation. The subscale is bifurcated into two primary conceptual facets:

• Cognitive Negotiation: Explicit, rational, and communicative problem-solving tactics, such as explaining one’s perspective calmly, proposing compromises, and agreeing to pilot a partner’s proposed resolution (e.g., Items 3, 59, 77).
• Emotional Negotiation: The preservation of relational empathy, active positive affect, and validation of the partner’s emotional state despite ideological divergence, such as showing respect for the partner’s feelings and conveying relational commitment (e.g., Items 1, 13, 39).

2. Psychological Aggression Subscale

Psychological Aggression assesses communicative acts (both verbal and non-verbal) intended to cause psychological pain, humiliation, fear, or emotional degradation. This dimension is differentiated into minor and severe levels:

• Minor Psychological Aggression: Commonplace hostile communicative behaviors, including shouting, yelling, insulting, swearing, or engaging in abrupt stonewalling/withdrawal by stomping out of the room during a dispute (e.g., Items 5, 35, 49).
• Severe Psychological Aggression: Destructive behaviors targeting personal self-worth, property, or psychological safety, such as destroying personal belongings, maliciously calling a partner fat or ugly, actively doing things out of pure spite, and issuing overt physical threats (e.g., Items 25, 29, 65, 69).

3. Physical Assault Subscale

Physical Assault assesses direct somatic contact aggression designed to inflict physical discomfort or pain. This dimension represents the historic core of the original CTS and is classified into distinct severity levels:

• Minor Physical Assault: Acts that carry low probability of permanent tissue damage or severe injury, such as grabbing, pushing, shoving, or slapping (e.g., Items 17, 45, 53).
• Severe Physical Assault: Lethal or potentially disabling acts of violence that carry a high likelihood of causing grave bodily trauma, including punching, kicking, beating up, choking/strangulation, burning, slamming against a wall, and using a knife or firearm (e.g., Items 21, 33, 37, 43, 61, 73).

4. Sexual Coercion Subscale

The Sexual Coercion subscale measures behaviors that compel or pressure a partner into sexual activities against their will or without explicit consent. This construct ranges from subtle verbal pressure to forcible penetrative assault:

• Minor Sexual Coercion: Non-physical sexual boundary violations, characterized by verbal insistence, emotional manipulation, or pressuring a partner into intercourse or oral/anal sex without the direct use of physical force (e.g., Items 51, 63).
• Severe Sexual Coercion: The direct use of physical force (e.g., holding down, hitting, threatening with weapons), explicit conditional threats, or forcing a partner to engage in sex without a condom (e.g., Items 15, 19, 47, 57, 75).

5. Physical Injury Subscale

A critical innovation of the CTS2 was the establishment of an independent Physical Injury subscale. Rather than presuming that physical assault automatically equates to physical harm, this dimension directly tracks the medical and somatic sequelae directly attributable to dyadic altercations:

• Minor Physical Injury: Manifestations of superficial trauma that do not necessitate emergency medical intervention, including cuts, scratches, bruises, visible sprains, and lingering pain continuing into the subsequent day (e.g., Items 11, 71).
• Severe Physical Injury: Objective, severe somatic consequences, including loss of consciousness from cranial trauma, broken bones, trauma requiring professional physician treatment, or situations where medical treatment was desperately needed but inaccessible (e.g., Items 23, 31, 41, 55).

Theoretical Framework

The Conflict Tactics Scales were constructed on the theoretical architecture of Conflict Theory, pioneered in general sociology by Georg Simmel, Lewis Coser, and Ralf Dahrendorf, and systematically translated to the family unit by Murray A. Straus. Traditional structural-functionalist sociology had historically portrayed the family as a harmonious, naturally balanced social system driven by consensus, viewing domestic violence as an aberrant, pathological breakdown caused by individual psychiatric illness. In contrast, Straus posited that the nuclear family is an inherently high-conflict social group. By virtue of high emotional investment, structural interdependence, daily spatial proximity, extensive boundary permeability, and diverse individual goals, conflict of interest within intimate dyads is structurally inevitable.

Straus’s theoretical framework conceptualizes intimate relationships through three interrelated theoretical mechanisms:

• The Inevitability of Conflict: Conflict itself is neither intrinsically pathological nor destructive; rather, it is a structural reality of human cohabitation. Pathological outcomes stem exclusively from the tactics selected by family members to manage or resolve these structural conflicts.
• Social Learning Theory (Albert Bandura): Aggressive conflict tactics are behavioral scripts acquired through observational learning, modeling in the family of origin, and social reinforcement. Individuals who observe or experience physical aggression in childhood internalize behavioral scripts linking conflict resolution to physical coercion.
• Resource Theory of Family Power: Formulated by Robert Blood and Donald Wolfe and expanded by William Goode, this theory posits that interpersonal power depends upon the comparative resources (e.g., economic income, social status, physical strength) possessed by each partner. When individuals perceive an acute deficit in normative resources (such as verbal eloquence or economic status) relative to their partner, physical force is frequently invoked as an ultimate baseline resource to assert behavioral control.

In modern clinical and social scientific literature, the theoretical operationalization of the CTS is frequently juxtaposed with feminist and coercive control frameworks, most notably encapsulated by Michael P. Johnson’s Typology of Domestic Violence. Johnson differentiated between Situational Couple Violence (SCV)—a dynamic characterized by intermittent, conflict-triggered arguments that escalate into physical aggression without an overarching motive to exert systemic patriarchal control—and Intimate Terrorism (IT), which involves an all-encompassing pattern of power, economic manipulation, terror, and systematic coercion. Scholars note that because the CTS explicitly contextualizes questions around “what happens when you have a disagreement or fight,” it inherently samples Situational Couple Violence with extraordinary psychometric sensitivity, while potentially under-sampling the structural, systemic terror and economic exploitation typical of clinical Intimate Terrorism.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the CTS and CTS2 has been evaluated extensively across hundreds of clinical, legal, and community samples worldwide over five decades:

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by the scale’s ability to delineate distinct behavioral profiles of couple conflict. Confirmatory factor analyses consistently substantiate that the 5-factor structure of the CTS2 (Negotiation, Psychological Aggression, Physical Assault, Sexual Coercion, and Injury) fits observed data significantly better than competing unidimensional or 3-factor models. Hierarchical structural models further confirm that minor and severe items cleanly load onto their designated second-order subdimensions, reflecting genuine variations in behavioral severity rather than idiosyncratic item error.

Convergent Validity

The CTS2 demonstrates robust convergent correlations with related psychometric measures of relationship distress, interpersonal hostility, and psychiatric symptoms:

• Marital and Relational Distress: Significant negative correlations are observed between CTS2 Negotiation and measures such as the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; $r = .40\text{ to } .60$, $p < .001$), while CTS2 Psychological Aggression and Physical Assault correlate positively with the DAS Dyadic Dissatisfaction and Marital Instability Index ($r = .35\text{ to } .55$).
• Individual Trait Aggression: CTS2 Physical Assault and Psychological Aggression subscales show strong convergence with self-report trait hostility instruments, including the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ; $r = .42\text{ to } .58$) and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).
• Partner Collateral Agreement: Inter-partner concordance across independent dyadic reports provides critical convergent validation. Studies evaluating concordance between partner A’s perpetration self-report and partner B’s victimization report consistently demonstrate moderate-to-high agreement (intraclass correlation coefficients and Cohen’s kappa values ranging from $.40$ to $.70$ for physical assault and injury), which is remarkably high given typical defensive underreporting biases in forensic contexts.

Discriminant and Criterion-Related Validity

The scale effectively discriminates between normative community couples, outpatient therapy clients, and court-mandated domestic violence offenders. In clinical validation studies (e.g., Straus et al., 1996; Lucente et al., 2001), individuals enrolled in batterer intervention programs scored significantly higher on severe physical assault, sexual coercion, and physical injury than non-clinical community controls ($p < .001, d > 1.20$). Furthermore, the CTS2 Physical Injury scale exhibits exceptional criterion validity against objective biological indicators, correlating strongly with medical records, physician visits, and lost work days due to interpersonal trauma.

Reliability

The CTS2 demonstrates strong internal consistency reliability, stability across time, and cross-cultural psychometric robustness:

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the seminal psychometric validation study conducted by Murray A. Straus, Sherry L. Hamby, Sue Boney-McCoy, and David B. Sugarman (1996) involving an undergraduate community sample of 317 university students, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the CTS2 subscales showed strong to excellent internal consistency:

• Physical Assault Subscale: $\alpha = .86$ for respondent perpetration; $\alpha = .87$ for partner victimization.
• Psychological Aggression Subscale: $\alpha = .79$ for respondent perpetration; $\alpha = .79$ for partner victimization.
• Injury Subscale: $\alpha = .87$ for respondent perpetration; $\alpha = .95$ for partner victimization.
• Negotiation Subscale: $\alpha = .86$ for respondent perpetration; $\alpha = .86$ for partner victimization.
• Sexual Coercion Subscale: $\alpha = .87$ for respondent perpetration; $\alpha = .87$ for partner victimization.

Subsequent psychometric investigations in clinical, forensic, and community populations (e.g., Vega & O’Leary, 2007) have replicated these reliability figures, with Physical Assault, Negotiation, and Injury alpha coefficients consistently exceeding $.85$. The Psychological Aggression subscale typically yields alphas between $.75$ and $.84$, reflecting the diverse array of behaviors captured (from subtle silent treatments to active verbal degradation).

Test-Retest Stability

Test-retest stability of the CTS2 has been evaluated across short-term intervals (one to eight weeks) and longitudinal spans. Short-term test-retest reliability coefficients for the physical assault and negotiation subscales typically range between $r = .75$ and $r = .88$. While longitudinal behavioral chronicity naturally fluctuates in response to relationship dissolution, life transitions, or therapeutic interventions, baseline-to-follow-up stability across 6-month non-intervention intervals remains robust ($r = .60\text{ to } .72$).

Factor Analysis

The underlying factor structure of the Conflict Tactics Scales has been investigated through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across numerous independent empirical cohorts.

Exploratory Factor Analyses

During the initial development of the original CTS (Form R), principal component analysis identified three core factors: Reasoning, Verbal Aggression, and Physical Violence. In the comprehensive restructuring that produced the CTS2, Straus and colleagues (1996) expanded the item universe to test a hypothesized five-factor model. Principal axis factoring with oblique (promax/oblimin) rotations cleanly differentiated the five theoretical constructs. Negotiation items loaded cleanly onto Factor 1, Physical Assault items dominated Factor 2, Psychological Aggression items loaded onto Factor 3, Sexual Coercion items defined Factor 4, and Physical Injury items formed Factor 5, with cross-loadings universally remaining below $.30$.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses & Model Fit

Subsequent rigorous CFA investigations in community, clinical, and cross-cultural cohorts (e.g., Lucente et al., 2001; Caetano et al., 2005) have examined competing structural models:

• Model 1: A single general “relationship conflict” factor (yields poor fit across all studies: $\text{RMSEA} > .10, \text{CFI} < .70$).
• Model 2: A three-factor model combining psychological aggression with physical assault and sexual coercion (yields unacceptable fit).
• Model 3: The theoretical 5-factor correlated model (Negotiation, Psychological Aggression, Physical Assault, Sexual Coercion, Injury).

The 5-factor correlated model consistently yields acceptable-to-excellent goodness-of-fit indices across diverse populations. Representative structural equation modeling results from clinical and community validation studies report the following model fit indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.92\text{ to } .96$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.91\text{ to } .95$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.038\text{ to } .052$ ($90% \text{ CI } [.032, .058]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.045\text{ to } .058$

Standardized item factor loadings for the Physical Assault subscale typically range between $.62$ and $.89$, for Negotiation between $.58$ and $.81$, and for Injury between $.65$ and $.92$. Multigroup invariance testing demonstrates metric and scalar invariance across biological sex and marital status, confirming that the CTS2 measures equivalent psychological constructs across men and women in intimate partnerships.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The complete instrument parameters, structural design, and psychometric scoring rules for the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) / Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS)
• Assessment Type: Standardized self-report behavioral questionnaire (dyadic administration: assessing self-perpetration and partner-victimization)
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), or secure online digital assessment
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents involved in marital, cohabiting, dating, or recently terminated intimate partnerships
• Completion Time: Approximately 15 to 25 minutes for the full 78-item scale (approx. 5 minutes for the brief 20-item CTS2 Short Form)
• Total Item Count: 78 items total, structured as 39 dyadic pairs (odd numbers query respondent perpetration; even numbers query partner victimization)
• Subscale Item Distributions:
  • Negotiation: 6 item pairs (12 items total: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 39, 40, 59, 60, 77, 78)
  • Psychological Aggression: 8 item pairs (16 items total: Items 5, 6, 25, 26, 29, 30, 35, 36, 49, 50, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70)
  • Physical Assault: 12 item pairs (24 items total: Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 21, 22, 27, 28, 33, 34, 37, 38, 43, 44, 45, 46, 53, 54, 61, 62, 73, 74)
  • Sexual Coercion: 7 item pairs (14 items total: Items 15, 16, 19, 20, 47, 48, 51, 52, 57, 58, 63, 64, 75, 76)
  • Physical Injury: 6 item pairs (12 items total: Items 11, 12, 23, 24, 31, 32, 41, 42, 55, 56, 71, 72)
• Response Scale (Partner CTS2 Frequency Format):
  • 1 = Once in the past year
  • 2 = Twice in the past year
  • 3 = 3–5 times in the past year
  • 4 = 6–10 times in the past year
  • 5 = 11–20 times in the past year
  • 6 = More than 20 times in the past year
  • 7 = Not in the past year, but it did happen before
  • 0 = This has never happened
• Scoring Algorithms:
  • Prevalence Scoring (Dichotomous): A subscale prevalence score is calculated by determining whether any behavior within that subscale occurred in the past year. Coded as 1 (prevalent) if any item in the subscale is scored between 1 and 6, and 0 (non-prevalent) if all items are scored 0 or 7.
  • Chronicity / Frequency Scoring (Continuous): Quantifies the estimated total annual number of times acts occurred. Because response categories 3 through 6 are banded ranges, responses are recoded to category midpoints prior to summation:
    • Response 0 = 0 times
    • Response 1 = 1 time
    • Response 2 = 2 times
    • Response 3 (3–5 times) = recoded to 4
    • Response 4 (6–10 times) = recoded to 8
    • Response 5 (11–20 times) = recoded to 15
    • Response 6 (More than 20 times) = recoded to 25
    • Response 7 (Not in past year) = recoded to 0 for past-year chronicity (or scored separately in lifetime prevalence analyses)
  • Severity Stratification: Allows researchers to report independent prevalence and chronicity scores for Minor versus Severe tiers of Psychological Aggression, Physical Assault, Sexual Coercion, and Injury.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original Conflict Tactics Scale (Form R) was developed and introduced in 1979 by Murray A. Straus at the University of New Hampshire. The revised instrument, the CTS2, was formally published in 1996 by Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, and Sugarman in the Journal of Family Issues. Related adaptations include the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale (CTSPC; Straus et al., 1998) and the CTS2 Short Form (CTS2S; Straus & Douglas, 2004).

Licensing and Ethical Use:
The CTS and CTS2 instruments are copyrighted by Murray A. Straus and the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. The instrument is distributed through Western Psychological Services (WPS) and direct academic licensing via the Family Research Laboratory. Murray Straus established an open-access policy for non-funded academic and dissertation researchers, granting permission to reproduce the instrument for non-profit empirical research provided proper bibliographic citation is maintained. Commercial applications, funded institutional research trials, and test manual acquisition require purchasing testing packets or formal licensing agreements. Because the CTS queries highly sensitive behaviors, its administration must comply with institutional review board (IRB) ethical guidelines, including trauma-informed assessment procedures, robust confidentiality protections, and immediate provision of domestic violence support resources.

References

• Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Prentice-Hall.
• Caetano, R., Field, C. A., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., & McGrath, C. (2005). The 5-factor structure of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales in a national sample of couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(5), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504272834
• Gelles, R. J. (1974). The violent home: A study of physical aggression between husbands and wives. Sage Publications.
• Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Northeastern University Press.
• Lucente, S. W., Fals-Stewart, W., Richards, H. J., & Jongsma, A. E. (2001). Factor structure and reliability of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales for incarcerated substance-abusing male offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 16(4), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012224823901
• Straus, M. A. (1974). Leveling, civility, and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/351132
• Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/351733
• Straus, M. A. (1990). The Conflict Tactics Scale and its critics: An evaluation and new data on validity and reliability. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 49–73). Transaction Publishers.
• Straus, M. A. (1995). Manual for the Conflict Tactics Scales. Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
• Straus, M. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2004). A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales for research on partner violence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(1), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00207.x
• Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (Eds.). (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. Transaction Publishers.
• Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001
• Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Moore, D. W., & Runyan, D. (1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(4), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00174-9
• Vega, E. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (2007). Test-retest reliability of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2). Journal of Family Violence, 22(8), 703–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9118-5

Items of the Scale